Enter Batgirl

[That_weirdo_Cage]

I get a strong sense from the Batgirl threads I've read on this board in recent years that many posters would like a time machine or something, some ability to go back and transform what the show was becoming so many years (so many decades) ago, while it was still mutable. That's interesting, up to a point, in that sort of "If I ran the zoo" sort of way. Some vocal fans are dissatisfied with what the show actually became, apparently. We can't really vary what the show is. It's a noun now, no longer a verb. We can seek better evidence to inform us about how or why the show became what it is, but we can't re-cast the program, change the writing or budgets, make the tone more serious or more fun or whatever would satisfy us more. It is what it is. Full of holes, self-contradictory, strange and fun and frustrating and weird. We can't alter that. I don't understand why we should want to, really. Various details about the show and what it is are presented as though they were crises demanding some urgent response, as though we could change something. I suppose that's just part of what fans do. We develop set ideas and seek validation through consensus, trying to get everyone to climb into our little boxes with us. Inside my own box, I obviously want to re-imagine the show as well, but more with the fiction than the fact. It's all sort of quintessentially YMMV. Or something.

[epaddon]

I get a strong sense from the Batgirl threads I've read on this board in recent years that many posters would like a time machine or something, some ability to go back and transform what the show was becoming so many years (so many decades) ago, while it was still mutable.

Well, yeah, some of us do think part of the reason for still maintaining interest in the show all these years later has nothing to do with playing with toys, making costumes etc. and has more to do with exploring the making of the show and trying to think in a *realistic* way what could have been done back then, based on the evidence as we have it. That means not indulging in wishes for things that never could have happened in the realities of the day but I think adding a line or two to one script clarifying the motives of Barbara Gordon for becoming Batgirl is hardly going back and wishing for something unrealistic. Nor I might add is exploring alternate casting ideas that fall under the category of genuinely viable at the time. If such analysis is tempered by an understanding of how things worked back then and what the motives were, then you end up IMO with a productive discussion that goes beyond "if I ran the zoo" thinking. For instance, I know why Batgirl was saddled with those seemingly absurd amenities of a secret entrance etc., it was because the producers were finding a cost-effective recycling of the "Green Hornet" sets that weren't needed any longer after that show was cancelled. Okay, so budgeting mean using them, at least then it might have been nice to cover in some dialogue an explanation for how Barbara can have all these at her disposal to just settle that matter once and move on.

We can seek better evidence to inform us about how or why the show became what it is, but we can't re-cast the program, change the writing or budgets, make the tone more serious or more fun or whatever would satisfy us more. It is what it is. Full of holes, self-contradictory, strange and fun and frustrating and weird. We can't alter that. I don't understand why we should want to, really.

Well, some of us think productive discussion that helps us maintain interest in the series better arises from these areas of production history and exploring realistically what could have been done differently to a show that did decline as it went on. These kinds of discussions have been helpful to me in plotting my own stories, but even without that side benefit, it appeals more to my sense of history about this show than the things that say, Warner would rather devote time to in the bonus materials on the DVD set. That's not how it has to be for everyone else, but it suits me just fine.

[That_weirdo_Cage]

That is interesting. Thank you. I am intrigued by the points about Barbara's apartment. Do you have a link to details about such matters? I would love to know more.

Perhaps it's because there are a few voices which always jump in with the same bullet points, in the Batgirl discussions I've read on the board in recent times, but it does end up seeming like the same discussion over and over again. I'm like that, too, when I bother to pipe up. Perhaps the upcoming video release will see an influx of new fans, with new perspectives. I suppose I miss the days on the board when the same topic could be discussed from different angles in different threads without becoming the same conversation about the same things every time. We fans are a dedicated, not to say obsessive and perseverating, lot.

Why is it important that these ambiguous points be explained within the fictional world? That seems to impact your ability to appreciate fully the material we have, unless I misinterpret your posts.

I'll be back to quote the source post to which I'm responding, for clarity, if I've managed to cross-post with HighC again.

[epaddon]

All you have to do is take a look at Britt Reid's apartment and also the alley where his car emerges and compare it to a shot of the Batgirl cycle emerging and its obvious we're looking at a redressed set. Since it wasn't needed for other show any longer and they were cutting corners in S3 as much as they could, this was an easy to understand decision on how to present something "new" that wasn't if one remembered the other show closely.

As to the discussion, I'm always for "different angles" in a conversation, and I like to think on realistic casting choices, there's been a good deal of diversity. It's been fun for instance to study other programs and other actresses of the 60s who *could* have been part of the Batman world and have realistic ideas for certain characters that go beyond the thought of some top-name movie star of the day who was never going to be on a TV show's radar screen. Some of us will always have some entrenched positions, but we're always willing to discuss and debate them in a friendly fashion and not just simply chime in with an "I agree" remark.

But the nice thing about a message board though which is open to discussion on diverse topics is that one can decide which ones are more to his or her liking and not have to bother with those they aren't interested in or who don't see much point in discussing. The best policy there is to just avoid those threads if you feel like it's not going to be to your liking or not. What may seem repetitive to some in some places, is anything but to others.

Why is it important that these ambiguous points be explained within the fictional world? That seems to impact your ability to appreciate fully the material we have, unless I misinterpret your posts.

Um, maybe because that's my definition of what constitutes basic good writing and how I wish that there were times the series had shown more of it? Ambiguity works only to a point where you at least drop a few hints here and there to provide some credibility for why this character exists. The failure to give that for Barbara Gordon, arguably contributed to why the character has never been fully ingrained in the public consciousness of Batman storytelling in the years since. If Barbara Gordon had been established in something more definitive, then I seriously doubt you have the powers that be deciding to reinvent the background of the character as Alfred's niece instead, so I think it can be argued that by refusing to be more specific about this, they were hurting the durability of the character beyond the TV series.

And yes, you misinterpreted the post. My exploring these areas is what lets me maintain interest in the series as a whole, because the series lends itself to those areas of discussion that I find interesting from a creative standpoint. If I didn't have that, I wouldn't have a lot to say about this show, period, and I doubt I'd even bother to be here. That's just how it is with me, and I don't see why that has to be seen as something out of place in a venue like this.

[That_weirdo_Cage]

As to the discussion, I'm always for "different angles" in a conversation, and I like to think on realistic casting choices, there's been a good deal of diversity.

Ah, and here's where something interesting has happened. I was referring to the topic of Batgirl. My paragraph structure is muddled, I'll grant, but it was the topic sentence. Batgirl discussions become casting discussions.

Okay, I'm back after giving myself a time out. I was going to go in a bad direction with that post.
I'm going to have to reply again, since I can't see the post to which I'm responding, while in response-editing mode.

[That_weirdo_Cage]

This, then, is "Take 2" for a response.

They were cutting corners on season three, and it's interesting to know that they integrated bits of the Green Hornet set into Batman. One of my Batman '66 fixed ideas has been that they didn't seem to be trying as hard with the third season, a trend which can arguably be seen as starting somewhere in season 2. I generally make much of a statement by... Horwitz or Strangis again... Cage needs to revisit his Batman reference material, as he tends lately to recall key ideas but only rarely sources. I tend to make much of a statement suggesting that season 3 was only undertaken to get the episode count up above 100, to help put the show in syndication and start making money off it without spending money on it. I also fixate on the impression that the quality on Batman suffered during season 2 because the production team became less focused, pulled thin while working on Green Hornet as well as Batman. Somehow I like the third season in spite of all of this, but as I stated earlier I think one may need to approach the season with a somewhat different mindset.

Sadly, knowing the possible origins of the alleyway Batgirl-cycle exit doesn't resolve the key mysteries of Barbara Gordon's odd apartment. They gave us some fascinating ambiguities and unknowns with that one. Oh, heck. I'm not sad about it. I like the mysteries. I also like knowing about the source of the alleyway exit. Thank you for that.

I'm not sure the mods remember the era as fondly as I do, but there was a span of time in 2007 during which we had up to five Batgirl threads going simultaneously, mostly with the same participants, all of the threads talking about different aspects of the broader topic of Batgirl. These did not consistently devolve into debates about the merits (or lack of them) of season three or about how much better it all could have been if budgets or scripts had been better or other casting choices had been made. There were actual varied discussions about Batgirl. It was a different time, and sadly it didn't last long. I keep making the mistake of approaching this board the way I used to back then, but things have changed. This board, while nice enough in many ways, is not as "open" as it was then.

I agree with you that better writing might have been nice, but what we got is what we got. Warts and all. The Schumacher film was a car crash, and the decision to make Barbara Alfred's niece was probably the least of its problems. I don't really see that being resolved by clarifying Barbara's motives in one line of a TV episode from 1967. DC had fleshed out the character long before Schumacher, so there was background material from which that project could have drawn. I've not seen any evidence that anyone "refused" to be more specific about Barbara's motives or background. I think that's just how things happened. TV storytelling in those days didn't use the same standards as would be applied today, as I'm sure you know. Audiences didn't expect the same things from TV writing, writers didn't approach storytelling the same way, episodes were written to be almost interchangeable rather than having each episode fall at some clearly defined point along some longer story arc. The standards of the era were different.

Batgirl's rise and fall (and rise and fall and rise) within the Bat-continuities is an interesting thing in itself. Most interesting to me is the way that her fortunes varied with the amount of influence Denny O'Neil (whose writing I love) had over the Bat-continuity. Denny repeatedly went on the record proclaiming his dislike for the entire Batman Family. He was proud of writing the death of Batwoman, and he was closely involved with the projects which saw the demises of Batgirl and Robin. Batgirl was out of the continuity for a very long time, while Denny's preferred harsher, more solitary "back to basics" Batman was emphasized more. Batgirl actually gained popularity during the period when she wasn't being published, and a lot of that seems to have happened due to the internet and the deep affection much of the geek community (if such a thing as a 'community' of geeks can be imagined ) holds for Yvonne and her portrayal of character. People wanted a Barbara Gordon Batgirl back long before DC finally restored her with the New 52. Barbara as Oracle was quite popular, in herself, which led DC to resist bringing back Barbara as Batgirl. The character has a healthy popularity, although probably not on the level required to sell big budget international films. The Batman 1966 fan base is divided over Batgirl, but that isn't the whole story. The character really isn't in any crisis because of how she was written in 1967.

[epaddon]

I'm not sure the mods remember the era as fondly as I do, but there was a span of time in 2007 during which we had up to five Batgirl threads going simultaneously, mostly with the same participants, all of the threads talking about different aspects of the broader topic of Batgirl. These did not consistently devolve into debates about the merits (or lack of them) of season three or about how much better it all could have been if budgets or scripts had been better or other casting choices had been made.

Maybe that's because for a long time, there could sometimes be a sense of intimidation that if one broached the subject about alternate casting ideas or dealing with the problems that existed at the time and how they could have been addressed, one might have found oneself subject to a flame-fest. I can only say that when I first raised the subject of Mobley, whose name I only brought up at the time because it was known she was under consideration, it was with a lot of concern that might happen, but fortunately that turned out not to be the case and it was a very productive discussion overall that I remember quite fondly. It was a classic case of how there can be a good dialogue on a subject like that, and something that represents the tradition of what a good message board discussion should be. It's a bit unfortunate that I'm now getting a reminder of just *why* that sense of intimidation used to be there for me.

I agree with you that better writing might have been nice, but what we got is what we got. Warts and all.

So why should discussion on what could have been *viably* done at the time be closed? If such a discussion isn't to your liking, fine, but don't suggest that a discussion like that is illegitimate or represents a bad thing in and of itself.

I've not seen any evidence that anyone "refused" to be more specific about Barbara's motives or background. I think that's just how things happened.

And here you are twisting my point into something I never said. I recognize things were done differently back then, but it was also not beyond the mental capacity of the writers and producers to have better anticipated these points and overcome that unconscious habit (which is not the same thing as saying or suggesting they plotted deliberately to not deal with this) That is not the same thing as asking why the writers/producers didn't do things that were out of the realm of possibility. If the discussion is based on a *realistic* premise of what *could* have been done, then its fair game for discussion and I've found that such discussion on any TV show, movie etc. and not just "Batman" can be quite stimulating. If it isn't for others, fine, but don't knock those of us who do think it's how we can get more conversation out of a show we like for our own reasons.

[That_weirdo_Cage]

Maybe that's because for a long time, there could sometimes be a sense of intimidation that if one broached the subject about alternate casting ideas or dealing with the problems that existed at the time and how they could have been addressed, one might have found oneself subject to a flame-fest. I can only say that when I first raised the subject of Mobley, whose name I only brought up at the time because it was known she was under consideration, it was with a lot of concern that might happen, but fortunately that turned out not to be the case and it was a very productive discussion overall that I remember quite fondly. It was a classic case of how there can be a good dialogue on a subject like that, and something that represents the tradition of what a good message board discussion should be. It's a bit unfortunate that I'm now getting a reminder of just *why* that sense of intimidation used to be there for me.

I have no problem with the discussion of Mobley, but with the way that now tends to dominate all Batgirl discussions. I see an irony to your suggestion that there was an intimidation factor preventing alternate casting discussions. Now the alternate casting discussions dominate Batgirl discussions. The (much broader) topic of Batgirl is now hampered by this one specific emphasis. I should apologize for being reactive about it, but I have a small panic attack when the topic sneaks into a discussion. "Oh, for ***** sake," I groan. "Not again!" Alternate casting discussions are fine, but does every Batgirl thread need to turn into a Mary Ann Mobley thread? We both like Batgirl, I know we do. Let's find some common ground on that topic.

So why should discussion on what could have been *viably* done at the time be closed? If such a discussion isn't to your liking, fine, but don't suggest that a discussion like that is illegitimate or represents a bad thing in and of itself.

It shouldn't be closed, but... same answer as above, actually. It's a nice enough discussion, but let's try some other things, too.

And here you are twisting my point into something I never said. I recognize things were done differently back then, but it was also not beyond the mental capacity of the writers and producers to have better anticipated these points and overcome that unconscious habit (which is not the same thing as saying or suggesting they plotted deliberately to not deal with this) That is not the same thing as asking why the writers/producers didn't do things that were out of the realm of possibility. If the discussion is based on a *realistic* premise of what *could* have been done, then its fair game for discussion and I've found that such discussion on any TV show, movie etc. and not just "Batman" can be quite stimulating. If it isn't for others, fine, but don't knock those of us who do think it's how we can get more conversation out of a show we like for our own reasons.

That's me, then, overreacting to the verb you used. My apologies. You're fine, your emphasis of and interest in the show are fine. I just wonder if we can have a somewhat different discussion about the topic of Batgirl. It's probably a bit late to try that now, after this back-and-forth.

[epaddon]

I'd like to note just as a point of information that the first time the name of Mobley came up in this thread was when out of the blue I saw the term "cue the Mary Ann Mobley crowd". I have not spent any time in this thread talking about the case for Mobley because this thread is not about the casting but how the character was written which is a problem that would have impacted *anyone* in the role and how I think the idea of Batgirl was not served as well long-term as could have been the case. That's got nothing to do with who was cast.

There's always opportunity to discuss any facet of Batgirl or any other part of the show we want to. That's the nice thing about a message board like this. But at the same time, other threads can continue for those who feel there's still more that can be said about them and if others want to do so as well.

[That_weirdo_Cage]

I'd like to note just as a point of information that the first time the name of Mobley came up in this thread was when out of the blue I saw the term "cue the Mary Ann Mobley crowd". I have not spent any time in this thread talking about the case for Mobley because this thread is not about the casting but how the character was written which is a problem that would have impacted *anyone* in the role and how I think the idea of Batgirl was not served as well long-term as could have been the case. That's got nothing to do with who was cast.

There's always opportunity to discuss any facet of Batgirl or any other part of the show we want to. That's the nice thing about a message board like this. But at the same time, other threads can continue for those who feel there's still more that can be said about them and if others want to do so as well.

Yes, let's get back to the original topic.

I don't see Batgirl as being part of the show's decline. That was happening already, for various reasons. She was a new twist which helped the show continue as long as it did. Batgirl couldn't realistically have been added much earlier than she was, for good or ill. Why DC elected to make Barbara James Gordon's daughter rather than Alfred's niece or anything else she might have been is unknown. Some of the season three episodes use strange and awkward approaches to try to include Batgirl in the story. Introducing Barbara as Alfred's niece in 1967 might have simplified some storytelling aspects while complicating others. The thread of mystery as the other characters wonder who Batgirl might be would have been harder to maintain if she lived at stately Wayne Manor. Could Batgirl hide her secret identity from Batman and Robin, and vice versa, under such circumstances? Perhaps most importantly, would Charlie the parrot have any role in a Batman 1967 with Barbara as Alfred's niece?

[High C]

I don't see Batgirl as being part of the show's decline. That was happening already, for various reasons. She was a new twist which helped the show continue as long as it did.

But not much longer, certainly. I agree the show already was declining before season 3. But obviously, the addition of Batgirl did nothing to stem that tide, and that's what I'm getting at.

Did Batgirl start the decline? No. Was she a part of it? No question.

Again, I don't begrudge you and others for getting enjoyment from Yvonne's performance. But the fact is she wasn't enough of a difference-maker to reverse the trend, and that has to do with both the way she was written and conceived and the way she was portrayed. I merely am engaging in legitimate speculation about what might have been done differently to save the show. As epaddon said, that's what message boards are for.

[Lounge lizard]

Mary Ann Mobley would've made a great Bat-girl

[Dr. Shimel]

The repurposing of sets (and props) definitely started during the first half of S2, but by S3, the shoestring budget ramped those two facets up to the extreme. I've pointed out before that in S2, one set was used four different times: It was a cell block in Gotham State Prison (Ma Parker); it was the Gotham City Stockyards (Shame); it was the Gotham City jail basement (Penguin & his restaurant); and it was the Gotham City Mint (Penguin & Marsha)

[clavierankh]

I have no problem with reusing sets . On the original Start Trek Cre Quarters, The Rec Hall, and Conference Romm were all redresses of the same set.

[Jaws63]

Yeh, when I started this thread my intension was for us to have an intelligent discussion about Batgirl and or about season 3. I state in my original post that "Yvonne Craig, Babs/Batgirl had nothing what so ever to do with the shows decline, I think we all agree there.

One thing about the season 3 opener, it that it was very clear that this was B&R's first encounter with Batgirl as was Alfred's as well. It's also quite evident that there was a lot of good chemistry between "Craig" and "Napier" I think the Niece angle could've worked. I'll even go so far as to say she could have still lived in that apartment and still be Alfred's niece, Barbera didn't necessarily have to live at Wayne manner for it to work. In fact in ways this might have been better, it would have preserved her true identity for sure. If played as the script was layed out with this one tweak, how she operates, her motivations, how she's able to be on top of a case as quickly as B&R do, would've given it an aura of mystery beyond what was originally written without changing a whole lot.

I can see why "Barbera" being the commissioner's daughter made sense. From a "be at the right place, at the right time" stand point, this works quite well in cartoon form, but in a live action series this comes across as convenient.